Supreme Court upholds 2025 environmental notification but strikes down exemption for schools, colleges, hostels and industrial sheds

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard a writ petition filed by Vanashakti challenging the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s notification dated 29 January 2025 (S.O. 523(E)) and the clarificatory Office Memorandum dated 30 January 2025. The petition contested the altered regime governing applicability of the 2006 environmental clearance Schedule — specifically Entries 8(a) and 8(b) relating to building/construction projects, townships and area-development projects — and sought quashing of parts of the 2025 notification as well as the OM.

The Court upheld the validity of the impugned notification and the OM but found Note 1 to Entry 8(a) arbitrary and struck it down. The judges accepted the Union’s submission that the 2006 Notification did not, on its face, make the General Conditions applicable to Entries 8(a) and 8(b), and that the 2025 notification provided clarity (including a definition of "built up area") while preserving the role of State Environmental Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs) in properly constituted States/Union Territories. The Court observed that SEIAAs, being statutory bodies with expert membership, were better placed than the Central Ministry to appraise many projects. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also noted that the 2025 notification expressly defined "built up area" and clarified that "General Conditions shall not apply" to Entries 8(a) and 8(b) as drafted, while directing that the specific exemption contained in Note 1 to Entry 8(a) — which excluded industrial sheds, schools, colleges and hostels for educational institutions from the rigours of the notification — was unsustainable and therefore quashed.

Background The dispute arose after the MoEF&CC issued S.O. 523(E) on 29 January 2025 and an OM on 30 January 2025, revising aspects of the environmental clearance regime established by the 2006 notification. Vanashakti challenged the notification on the ground that it diluted protections and effectively nullified earlier judicial pronouncements (including Kerala High Court orders that quashed a 2014 notification and National Green Tribunal orders that set aside parts of the 2016 notification). The petitioners alleged suppression of material facts and contended that General Conditions applicable to sensitive zones ought to continue to be centrally examined by the MoEF&CC.

The Union and several intervenors defended the 2025 notification as a necessary clarification — partly responding to this Court’s earlier observations in In Re: Construction of Park at Noida near Okhla Bird Sanctuary — and argued that the 2006 Schedule, read literally, did not make General Conditions applicable to Entries 8(a) and 8(b). The Court reviewed prior orders: the Kerala High Court’s quashing of the 2014 notification, the NGT’s 2017 setting aside of parts of the 2016 notification, and the Delhi High Court’s stay of 2018 notifications. The judges applied the literal rule of interpretation to the delegated legislation, considered statutory composition and functions of SEIAAs (as envisaged by the 2006 notification), and balanced environmental protection with sustainable development principles recognised in this Court’s precedents. The Court held the 2025 notification and the OM valid, quashed Note 1 to Entry 8(a) which had exempted industrial sheds and educational buildings from the notification’s scope, and left intact the role of SEIAAs to consider projects where properly constituted. The writ petition was partly allowed; no costs were awarded and all impleadment/intervention applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 166 OF 2025 (2025 INSC 961) Case Title: Vanashakti v. Union of India Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Counsel; Shri Vanshdeep Dalmia, Advocate; Shri P.V. Dinesh, Senior Counsel (appeared for intervenors supporting petitioner) For the Respondent(s): Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General of India (for Union of India, MoEF&CC); Shri Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India (for State of Maharashtra); Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Counsel; Shri Atmaram Nadkarni, Senior Counsel (for intervenors)